Show simple item record

dc.contributorBounejmate, M.en_US
dc.contributorRyan, Johnen_US
dc.contributorBaalbaki, Riad Zen_US
dc.contributorNassar, A.en_US
dc.contributorMaacaroun, R.en_US
dc.creatorYau, Sui-Kwongen_US
dc.date2003-08-01en_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-12-03T23:51:12Z
dc.date.available2020-12-03T23:51:12Z
dc.identifierhttps://mel.cgiar.org/dspace/limiteden_US
dc.identifier.citationSui-Kwong Yau, M. Bounejmate, John Ryan, Riad Z Baalbaki, A. Nassar, R. Maacaroun. (1/8/2003). Barley–legumes rotations for semi-arid areas of Lebanon. European Journal of Agronomy, 19 (4), pp. 599-610.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/12171
dc.description.abstractIn arid and semi-arid areas of West Asia and North Africa, including the northern Bekaa Valley of Lebanon, farmers have been increasingly practicing continuous barley cultivation. The objectives of the study were to (1) determine whether barley monoculture is unsustainable1, (2) ascertain if barley and total dry matter yields can be increased and sustained by including a legume crop in the rotation, and (3) determine which barley–legume rotations are more productive. The trial was set up in a randomised complete block design with two replicates under rain-fed conditions in 1994–1995 at the Agricultural Research and Educational Center (33°56′ N, 36°5′ E, 995 m above sea level). Eight two-phase barley-based rotations were compared: barley in rotation with barley, lentil, common vetch, bitter vetch, common vetch for grazing, medics for grazing, common vetch for hay, and common vetch with barley for hay. Seed and straw were harvested from barley and legumes in the first four rotations. Relative to the trial mean, seed and straw yield under barley monoculture slumped in 1997–1998 and did not recover since then. Infestation of wild barley was a cause of this yield decline. Barley–legume rotations yielded 44–80% more barley grain and 27–53% more barley straw than the barley monoculture over the 6 years (1995–1996 to 2000–2001). Furthermore, in the legume phase, common and bitter vetch gave higher seed yield than barley monoculture. Thus, all barley–legume rotations, except barley–medics, yielded more total dry matter than barley monoculture on the basis of per rotation cycle. Among the barley–legume rotations, the barley-common vetch for seed rotation gave the highest and most stable dry matter yield. In conclusion, barley monoculture was unsustainable, but barley yields could be increased and sustained by including legumes in the rotation. Farmers in semi-arid areas of Lebanon should discontinue practicing barley monoculture and adopt a barley–legume, such as common vetch, rotation.en_US
dc.languageenen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.rightsCopyrighted; all rights reserveden_US
dc.sourceEuropean Journal of Agronomy;19,(2003) Pagination 599,610en_US
dc.subjectyield stabilityen_US
dc.subjecthay yielden_US
dc.titleBarley–legumes rotations for semi-arid areas of Lebanonen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
cg.subject.agrovocgrazingen_US
cg.subject.agrovocvetchesen_US
cg.subject.agrovocprotein contenten_US
cg.subject.agrovoclentilsen_US
cg.subject.agrovocmedicsen_US
cg.contributor.centerAmerican University of Beirut, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences - AUB - FoAFSen_US
cg.contributor.centerInternational Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas - ICARDAen_US
cg.contributor.centerAmerican University of Beirut - AUBen_US
cg.contributor.centerLebanese University, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences - UL - FoASen_US
cg.contributor.funderInternational Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas - ICARDAen_US
cg.contributor.projectCommunication and Documentation Information Services (CODIS)en_US
cg.contributor.project-lead-instituteInternational Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas - ICARDAen_US
cg.date.embargo-end-dateTimelessen_US
cg.coverage.regionWestern Asiaen_US
cg.coverage.countryLBen_US
cg.contactsy00@aub.edu.lben_US
cg.identifier.doihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1161-0301(03)00006-6en_US
dc.identifier.statusTimeless limited accessen_US
mel.impact-factor3.726en_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
Disclaimer:
MELSpace content providers and partners accept no liability to any consequence resulting from use of the content or data made available in this repository. Users of this content assume full responsibility for compliance with all relevant national or international regulations and legislation.
Theme by 
Atmire NV